Why does the shadowdancer even exist?

[Felvion]

Well, since my group has always been negative about splatbook use and we are usually restricted to core I was looking at the Shadowdancer PrC recently.

I've already seen those comments around saying it's only a 1-2 level dip worth, it offers nothing to keep your party alive, feat expensive etc..

On the other hand I could see the flavor in the whole idea, the shadow familiar sounded cool and decided to give it a try making a core build based mostly on the shadowdancer theme.

At first I wanted to find a role for this character, focused on mid-levels. That's because it takes 7 lvls to fulfill the skill requirements and around 4 more to have most of his toolkit in use. When in battle, except from the familiar doing it's thing, the best scenario was to get in there grab something precious and leave before anyone laid a hand on you. Or even better without even being noticed. In case the base class had been rogue obviously there could be some sneak attacks too.

It didn't seem that great but still worth a try. My next step was to find a base class. The rogue was an obvious option for the skills and sa adding some offensive bonus. The other one was the bard and of course a mix of them (bard4/rogue 3) seemed good too. Ranger could be really interesting but not what I had in mind.

I first stuck with the bard, and started building his personality. Long story short he would be an infamous performer, giving illusion and sleight of hand shows and in the same time breaking in some rich men's properties and making some extra profit. High CHA, INT and DEX was all i needed. Then i started to pick some bard spells and soon i found out that in order to fulfill the most out of the Shadowdancer I had in mind all i had to do was to go.... straight bard all the way!

The bard can cast dimension door, almost the same as shadow jump. Shadow illusion is laughable... HiPS? B*tch pls, i'm invisible! Darkvision can be acquired in many ways, and as for the familiar... Well i'm sure that leadership could bring something good around. All this while still progressing fully as a bard...

So what i finally came up is that even in a core-restricted campaign that prestige class is not even worth it... Why did they even make it then?

[Rebel7284]

Why did wizards make the monk?

The books have plenty of suboptimal choices.

I would like to point out that HiPS (and mundane hiding in general) works against See Invisibility and True Sight.

[Elderand]

Why did wizards make the monk?

The books have plenty of suboptimal choices.

I would like to point out that HiPS (and mundane hiding in general) works against See Invisibility and True Sight.

No no no....let's go farther

Why does anything beside STP erudite, Arcane swordsage, Ilithid savant or Artificer even exist ?

The answer is of course to provide stuff for the above mentionned classes to pillage and use better than the original owner does of course.

[Curmudgeon]

Why? Well, basically because WotC didn't think Rogues, the game's iconic stealthy class, should have any magical abilities — even magical abilities which support stealth. The Shadowdancer's Hide in Plain Sight is Supernatural (i.e., magical) and thus Rogues have to "earn" HiPS by the (very expensive) process of entering the Shadowdancer prestige class.

[Oliver Veyrac]

Hide and plain sight is just sure awesome sauce. Cast light on a rock on a wall, party members now cast shadows. Hide in plain sight is now active. It's just sheer fun!

[Andezzar]

Hide and plain sight is just sure awesome sauce. Cast light on a rock on a wall, party members now cast shadows. Hide in plain sight is now active. It's just sheer fun!have someone cast continual flame on a pebble. Drop it whenever you need shadows. Even if you have to buy the spellcasting, those 110 gp are well spent.

[ericgrau]

Sending the shadow ahead of the party is very useful. Unlike PCs, most monsters have no way to deal with incorporeal foes. When you advance its HD, consider spring attack to make it that much more untouchable from the safety of walls and floors. Before the foes figure it out and start readying actions, if they even do have a way to hit it, the party comes in. Then readying actions becomes a waste of enemy time because the party is a greater threat. Then the shadow continues to damage str while the party fights the foe.

The shadow makes a good scout too. He makes no noise at all, hides well, and passes through walls. The skillmonkey who controls it also scouts well as always.

[squiggit]

Part of the problem was your class choice. Rogues make pretty weak shadow dancers. Go ranger or ranger/fighter as your entrance. Rogue simply doesn't give you the great sword support you want.

[RedMage125]

Why did wizards make the monk?

The books have plenty of suboptimal choices.

I would like to point out that HiPS (and mundane hiding in general) works against See Invisibility and True Sight.

In a game restricted to Core-only, the monk becomes less terrible. Note that I did not say "better", just "less terrible".

And I have to agree that the Shadowdancer was pretty terrible. The Shadow Jump ability is only worthwhile after about 8th level in the class (which is 16th level character).

[Stoneback]

To make the Dwarven Defender look cool.

[VoxRationis]

Why? Well, basically because WotC didn't think Rogues, the game's iconic stealthy class, should have any magical abilities — even magical abilities which support stealth. The Shadowdancer's Hide in Plain Sight is Supernatural (i.e., magical) and thus Rogues have to "earn" HiPS by the (very expensive) process of entering the Shadowdancer prestige class.

You know, it should be possible to play a character with no magical abilities, which is hard enough in this game (I think only three of the core classes have no magical abilities, and two of them are heavy melee types). Leave the Rogue alone; there's the Ninja and Spellthief if you want magic.

[(Un)Inspired]

In a game restricted to Core-only, the monk becomes less terrible. Note that I did not say "better", just "less terrible".

And I have to agree that the Shadowdancer was pretty terrible. The Shadow Jump ability is only worthwhile after about 8th level in the class (which is 16th level character).

I think the monk is a hell of a lot worse in a core only game actually.

They have some pretty good (for a monk) acf released outside of core and excellent multiclass options that retain monk stuff (sacred fist and tashlatora) and feats that make monks better (sun school, snap kick)


Leave the Rogue alone; there's the Ninja and Spellthief if you want magic.

Yeah Curmudgeon, how dare you argue that the rogue should have abilities that actually make it effective at its job!

[VoxRationis]

This isn't World of Warcraft; it is not a necessity for rogues to be able to disappear in front of people who are watching them (though I've seen Bluff/Hide combinations which can amount to that). Your rogue should be hiding before enemies are seen, sneaking up on them using darkness and cover. Hide in Plain Sight isn't a requirement for skilled rogue play (I've seen plenty of rogues who are more than effective without it), and I think it necessary that the game be able to support characters who are skilled in things other than various flavors of magic. Think of how many fantasy and legendary characters are good at things other than magic; if you keep to your "define a series of magical abilities as "needed" and give them to every class" philosophy, you not only lose on class variety, but also on the ability to mirror these characters. If every class needs to have a suite of magical abilities and is evaluated solely on its ability to aid in fights against other creatures with suites of magical abilities, then you should be playing something else.

[DarkSonic1337]

In a game restricted to Core-only, the monk becomes less terrible. Note that I did not say "better", just "less terrible".


That couldn't be further from the truth 0_o.

Also like it or not D&D3.5 is a HIGH MAGIC setting. As you get higher in level more and more enemies have access to spells or spell like abilities, and the players get more and more access to magic (be it through class abilities or just spending the money WBL says your supposed to have).

[Psyren]

As Rebel pointed out, simply hiding can sometimes be superior to invisibility. Particularly for bards, who cannot silence any of their spells.

[(Un)Inspired]

This isn't World of Warcraft; it is not a necessity for rogues to be able to disappear in front of people who are watching them (though I've seen Bluff/Hide combinations which can amount to that). Your rogue should be hiding before enemies are seen, sneaking up on them using darkness and cover. Hide in Plain Sight isn't a requirement for skilled rogue play (I've seen plenty of rogues who are more than effective without it), and I think it necessary that the game be able to support characters who are skilled in things other than various flavors of magic. Think of how many fantasy and legendary characters are good at things other than magic; if you keep to your "define a series of magical abilities as "needed" and give them to every class" philosophy, you not only lose on class variety, but also on the ability to mirror these characters. If every class needs to have a suite of magical abilities and is evaluated solely on its ability to aid in fights against other creatures with suites of magical abilities, then you should be playing something else.


You just gotta remember that 3.5 D&D isn't medieval fantasy game or even a game that emulates historical legends.

It's a straight up super hero game. Even lower tier casters like the Wilder end the game with as many powers as an entire X-men team.

A dude who tries to be sneaky by mundane means, even the most extraordinary mundane means, is gonna get left in the dust by the reality warping, future seeing, all knowing characters around him.

[EugeneVoid]

Alternate route into Telflammar Shadowlord

[VoxRationis]

You drastically redefine the genre of the game here and you call (not here but in the past) out the designers for not anticipating playstyles correctly? You don't see a problem with that?
Your viewpoint: D&D 3.5 is a game about breaking all limits and characters with a million superpowers each, and WotC failed in understanding the very tone, the very genre, of their own game, since that's not how the game is described and not how any of the descriptions in the PHB really put it.
My viewpoint: D&D 3.5 is, like its predecessors, a game about fantasy with roots in classic fantasy literature, medieval history, and legend, and WotC failed in understanding the long-term implications of certain rulesets, when abused, would lead to playstyles that deviated from this.
Your viewpoint requires that the designers did not know what they had in mind when they made the game. My viewpoint requires that they didn't look too closely at several hundred pages of material and let loopholes through.

[(Un)Inspired]

You drastically redefine the genre of the game here and you call (not here but in the past) out the designers for not anticipating playstyles correctly? You don't see a problem with that?
Your viewpoint: D&D 3.5 is a game about breaking all limits and characters with a million superpowers each, and WotC failed in understanding the very tone, the very genre, of their own game, since that's not how the game is described and not how any of the descriptions in the PHB really put it.
My viewpoint: D&D 3.5 is, like its predecessors, a game about fantasy with roots in classic fantasy literature, medieval history, and legend, and WotC failed in understanding the long-term implications of certain rulesets, when abused, would lead to playstyles that deviated from this.
Your viewpoint requires that the designers did not know what they had in mind when they made the game. My viewpoint requires that they didn't look too closely at several hundred pages of material and let loopholes through.

I totally agree.

[VoxRationis]

I confess, your reply somewhat threw me off, as I was expecting something a little more verbose in defense of your position.

You don't see it as more likely that they mistook the implications of a few items among hundreds of pages of text than that they intentionally put those items in there, understanding their implications, while writing the rest of the game as though it were something completely different?

[Ziegander]

I confess, your reply somewhat threw me off, as I was expecting something a little more verbose in defense of your position.

You don't see it as more likely that they mistook the implications of a few items among hundreds of pages of text than that they intentionally put those items in there, understanding their implications, while writing the rest of the game as though it were something completely different?

I don't know that you understand the position you're trying to argue. The Core PHB is a cluster**** of balance problems. In literally the first book ever published for D&D 3.X, Barbarians and Rogues were barely passable, while Fighters, Monk, Paladins, and Rangers all sucked. Meanwhile, Clerics, Druids, Sorcerers, and Wizards are able to unhinge the mortal coil as we know it and rape reality to suit their whims.

Are you trying to say that the designers meant for stealthy Rogues to be able to sneak up and stab Pit Fiends using no more than the Hide and Move Silently skills, but that they horribly and pathetically failed to realize that at-will Greater Teleport, Invisibility, and/or Persistent Image make that almost certainly impossible?

Are you trying to say that the designers thought that Fighters spending a class feature to gain +2 to damage rolls with a specific weapon (to a total of +2 to hit and +4 to damage with that weapon) at 12th level was balanced against a Cleric's ability to cast 32 spells per day, five of which are spells such as Flame Strike, Plane Shift, Raise Dead, Righteous Might (minimum +3 to damage w/all weapons + reach, not to mention +AC and DR), and True Seeing; four of which are spells such as Banishment, Blade Barrier, Greater Dispel Magic, and Wind Walk?

Or is it more likely that, since even in the very first book written for the game magic was so far superior to mundane, that they knew spells and supernatural abilities were more powerful than mundane ones and simply decided, "if a Rogue wants to sneak up on a Pit Fiend, they're going to need some magic to help them out," and thought that magic items were the answer?

What is your point exactly?

[(Un)Inspired]

I confess, your reply somewhat threw me off, as I was expecting something a little more verbose in defense of your position.

You don't see it as more likely that they mistook the implications of a few items among hundreds of pages of text than that they intentionally put those items in there, understanding their implications, while writing the rest of the game as though it were something completely different?

I agree that we have different viewpoint a on what kind of game 3.5 is.

I also agree my viewpoint is that the designers didn't know what they had in mind when creating their own game and that your viewpoint was that they didn't read their own material and let loopholes through.

When people are in agreement there's no need for verbosity.

[Felvion]

I can see many points around but still i'm a bit confused. Some people came in defence of the class and i agree that it has a special flavor of its own. Definately viable in a core restricted and not high-op campaign IMO...
BUT when i see the character i had in mind it would be much better for me to play a straight bard and maybe somewhen convince my DM to give me a shadow through Leadership. The shadowdancer requires so many things that makes it less fun than i can make it happen with a bard. I try to visualise a character but all those skills and feats required leave me with very few options. Even a human with a high Int would have a hard time allocating skill points and would be left with half feats to choose on his own.

Someone mentioned the ranger or the ranger/fighter. I really dont think they can handle the skill requirements while making a playable outcome.

Trying to sum up. What would you suggest me trying to become a shadowdancer in core? Get the prestige class or not? I believe it's personal taste after all but still I would like some suggestions...

[Psyren]

Are you trying to say that the designers meant for stealthy Rogues to be able to sneak up and stab Pit Fiends using no more than the Hide and Move Silently skills, but that they horribly and pathetically failed to realize that at-will Greater Teleport, Invisibility, and/or Persistent Image make that almost certainly impossible?

Well... no, actually they didn't intend that. The expectation is that players - at least, players who are taking on things like Pit Fiends - have and are using magical assistance too, which is why every PC gets WBL. With the right items the rogue can get around a Pit Fiend's defenses, as well as the fiend's ability to see in darkness.

I agree however that it doesn't exactly feel satisfying that the PC has to turn to things outside of his class features to win.

[Invader]

I always loved the class and the flavor but what makes it so bad for me is not the mechanics or level of power, it's the god awful prerequisites.

[squiggit]

My viewpoint: D&D 3.5 is, like its predecessors, a game about fantasy with roots in classic fantasy literature, medieval history, and legend.

But it isn't. D&D 1e and 2e (and variants) are definitely medieval fantasy games, but 3.0/3.5/4/5 are not. They're very much epic fantasy games, where wizards can unmake reality and barbarians can survive a fall from low orbit with minimal harm. And they've been that way since the editions were fresh.



and WotC failed in understanding the very tone, the very genre, of their own game
See that's a bit weird. WoTC does a lot of things wrong, but suggesting that they just accidentally made a game of the wrong genre seems a bit silly. Especially since later books in both the 3.x line and the following editions double down on epic fantasy rather than low fantasy. One would think if they just "accidentally" made a high fantasy game they'd walk it back with their revisions instead of exacerbating it several times over.

What's more, while overestimating their own limitations and accidentally allowing wizards to become too powerful might make sense, explicitly including things like skill DCs for walking on water as a mundane character entirely flies in the face of the idea that this game was ever meant to be a low fantasy game.

[Yogibear41]

To make the Dwarven Defender look cool.


In a non-op game those guys can be pretty awesome if you take the right feats.

[Ziegander]

Well... no, actually they didn't intend that. The expectation is that players - at least, players who are taking on things like Pit Fiends - have and are using magical assistance too, which is why every PC gets WBL. With the right items the rogue can get around a Pit Fiend's defenses, as well as the fiend's ability to see in darkness.

Good point about see in darkness. Totally passed that one up. Vox though seemed to be implying that a fully mundane Rogue was a fine thing, even going so far to say "leave the Rogue alone." He may not have meant sans magic items, but I fail to see his point about magic/no-magic and/or medieval fantasy.

Unless the DM is willing to ignore a massive number of high level monsters, and homebrew many and more of his own so that they use little to no magic, then by necessity a group of adventurers, spellcasters or not, are going to need a suite of magical abilities and will be evaluated solely on their ability to contribute in fights against other creatures with suites of magical abilities. That's just the game as written.


I agree however that it doesn't exactly feel satisfying that the PC has to turn to things outside of his class features to win.

Indeed. :smallannoyed:

[ZX6Rob]

You drastically redefine the genre of the game here and you call (not here but in the past) out the designers for not anticipating playstyles correctly? You don't see a problem with that?
Your viewpoint: D&D 3.5 is a game about breaking all limits and characters with a million superpowers each, and WotC failed in understanding the very tone, the very genre, of their own game, since that's not how the game is described and not how any of the descriptions in the PHB really put it.
My viewpoint: D&D 3.5 is, like its predecessors, a game about fantasy with roots in classic fantasy literature, medieval history, and legend, and WotC failed in understanding the long-term implications of certain rulesets, when abused, would lead to playstyles that deviated from this.
Your viewpoint requires that the designers did not know what they had in mind when they made the game. My viewpoint requires that they didn't look too closely at several hundred pages of material and let loopholes through.

Y'know, I'm really not trying to be rude or stir up trouble here, but this is the second thread I've seen today where you have expressed some pretty adamant opinions about the kind of game D&D "should" be or was intended to be. I'm not going to say you're wrong, exactly -- hey, man, you run your game however you like -- but I do kind of disagree with the apparent narrowness of your interpretation.

I mean, the Monster Manual alone -- one of the core three books -- is the biggest hint to me that, straight-up, by-the-book medieval European fantasy, while certainly supported, isn't the only genre the game tries to emulate or incorporate. You've got stuff like the Aboleths, which are Lovecraftian horrors for a scary, mysterious kind of game. You could actually roll a party of four commoners and build yourself a pretty solid session based on The Shadow over Innsmouth if you were so inclined. You've got things like the Tarrasque, which -- regardless of how difficult it actually is to defeat -- is basically a setup for "superpowered heroes fight Not-Exactly-Godzilla". There's all these extraplanar creatures on the ethereal or elemental planes, or the outer ring of the Great Wheel, and I can't think of too many Arthurian legends where the Knights of the Round ventured into other planes of existence to combat an incarnation of chaos. Truth be told, if I'm thinking of venturing across the veil of death to challenge the underworld for a fallen soul, that sounds more like Greek myth to me.

D&D supports a whole wide variety of genres and adventures, and I don't think that's by accident. Any claim that people going outside of the bog-standard, Euro-centric medieval fantasy is "drastically redefining the genre of the game" is a little spurious, isn't it? I mean, this is the same game that has a whole race of giant toads that live in another dimension composed of pure anarchy, right?

I dig on the classic fantasy riffs as much as the next fella', but I have to agree with some of the other posters here, 20th-level D&D isn't really trying to hit those notes. Have you checked out that E6 ruleset that folks are talking about around here? I think that's a better system for doing what it sounds like you enjoy doing. As soon as you get into the level of wizards being able to reshape reality, summon and bind legions of outsiders, cheat death six ways before breakfast, and create perfectly-loyal replicas of divine avatars, we're not really talking about the ol' Lord of the Rings kind of fantasy any more.

[Psyren]

Vox though seemed to be implying that a fully mundane Rogue was a fine thing, even going so far to say "leave the Rogue alone." He may not have might sans magic items, but I fail to see his point about magic/no-magic and/or medieval fantasy.

I guess where I'm coming from is somewhere between the two extremes. The designers did envision a very specific way of playing D&D and didn't really plan outside of that paradigm; however, on some level, they did recognize that the abilities of certain classes (the mundanes in particular) would be inadequate to combat all the challenges they had devised in the MM. To that end, they not only created magic items, but they also told the DM "this is the minimum amount of magical gear players should have at each level."

Here too they slipped up I think, by leaving it up to the players and DMs to decide what to spend that wealth on, and leaving low wealth campaigns out in the cold entirely, but at least they did something.

[BrokenChord]

Well, when a mommy Shadow and a daddy Shadow with an interest in ballet love eachother very much...

... And then she realized that dancing and being able to stand right in front of people without them seeing her were her two true passions in life. Thus she became known as the Shadowdancer.



Oh, wait. You meant why did WotC design that prestige class. Hm, same reason they made Monks and Druids in the same book I suppose; to make it exceptionally difficult for mundanes to have as nice of things as their friends.

[Curmudgeon]

Your rogue should be hiding before enemies are seen, sneaking up on them using darkness and cover. Hide in Plain Sight isn't a requirement for skilled rogue play ...
That isn't allowed by the game rules. Hide is an opposed check, so you can't Hide until a round where someone might Spot you (i.e, has line of sight to your position, in a game without "facing"). It's partly because of this game mechanic that Hide in Plain Sight is so useful.

[VoxRationis]

But it isn't. D&D 1e and 2e (and variants) are definitely medieval fantasy games, but 3.0/3.5/4/5 are not. They're very much epic fantasy games, where wizards can unmake reality and barbarians can survive a fall from low orbit with minimal harm. And they've been that way since the editions were fresh.
I'd hardly call 20d6 damage "minimal harm." Not necessarily a kill, depending on your level, but far from "minimal harm," as things can do a lot less damage to a barbarian.



See that's a bit weird. WoTC does a lot of things wrong, but suggesting that they just accidentally made a game of the wrong genre seems a bit silly.
I was not suggesting that. That sentence was taken directly from what I was describing someone else's viewpoint as. I was suggesting that munchkinly players make it into the wrong genre. UnInspired was the one who agreed with the statement that they made their game up to be the wrong genre.


explicitly including things like skill DCs for walking on water as a mundane character entirely flies in the face of the idea that this game was ever meant to be a low fantasy game.

That's from the Epic Level Handbook, if I'm not mistaken, and that is an entirely different bag of tricks, but you do make a point that the typical level I think of when I think of D&D is much different from the one these forums thinks of. I think of 6th-10th level as sort of the "real" game, when players start to have a fair number of tricks and advantages up their sleeves but can't steamroll over everything. Earlier than that, they have difficulty keeping alive, and after that is like playing Age of Empires with infinite resources cheats.
But this forum seems to think that play begins at 20th level, or 15th at the lowest; most builds I see suggested include a full 20 levels and everyone assumes you can use high-level spells and Empower-Maximize numerous spells without eating up all your highest slots.
That's probably where the discrepancy in my thinking and the group's thinking appears. And while it's obvious that the game supports your playstyle, I would not be so quick to assume that it's the default assumption of the game, for several reasons:
1) The point in the game you define is explicitly called "high level" and you need a sourcebook to support most of it, rather than in the middle of it. If what matters is the journey and not the end, then they would have made the game go up to 40th had they intended high-level, planet-smashing style to be the default.
2) Numerous games, written NPCs, and even the story this forum orbits around (although somewhere past Pluto for these threads) take place with mid-level characters; in the first book of OotS, the players run from goblins.
3) Lots of classes lack "capstones" or twentieth-level abilities; this doesn't really matter for mid-level play and is often due to the extrapolation of formulaic abilities (i.e., sneak attack, smite evil/day usages, etc.) in a fashion which suggests they weren't really trying above mid-level.
4) Large-scale usage of high-level abilities is not the assumption of many published settings, with the exception of Planescape; Forgotten Realms has portals in dungeons, but no trade networks of teleportation circles or wishes for free at corner squares, to say nothing of other implications of the sorts of shenanigans mentioned on these threads.

In short, you have made your point that the game clearly accepts that which is bandied so commonly about on this forum, but I reject the premise that it is the inherent assumption or intention of the game's tone, settings, or gameplay.

[VoxRationis]

That isn't allowed by the game rules. Hide is an opposed check, so you can't Hide until a round where someone might Spot you (i.e, has line of sight to your position, in a game without "facing"). It's partly because of this game mechanic that Hide in Plain Sight is so useful.

By that logic, you can't forge anything (make a Forgery check) until someone begins to check the documents, since that's also an opposed roll, but that's not how it works. It's opposed like that because there's no point in seeing whether anyone spots you if no one is there to spot you.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Vox, D&D just isn't cut out to be a low-power swords and sorcery game. Unless you, y'know, use E6, in which case knock yourself out.

[Augmental]

2) Numerous games, written NPCs, and even the story this forum orbits around (although somewhere past Pluto for these threads) take place with mid-level characters; in the first book of OotS, the players run from goblins.

Order of the Stick is a webcomic, not a D&D tabletop game.

[VoxRationis]

Care to back that up, "Jade?" (I really hate it when people use only the first part of my screen name, so I would ask as a degree of gentlemanly courtesy that you stop.) Obviously, you can have it not be a low-power sword-and-sorcery affair, but it can be as well, and I made four arguments to how it is not inherently a high-power, stab-Zeus-to-death game, while at the same time acknowledging that your playstyle is permissible.

[squiggit]

In short, you have made your point that the game clearly accepts that which is bandied so commonly about on this forum, but I reject the premise that it is the inherent assumption or intention of the game's tone, settings, or gameplay.

It's a 20 level game (with rules for infinite progression beyond that) and you leave the realm of normalcy (or even exceptionalism) by level 5 or 6, so I have to disagree there.

It's not necessary (e6 exists after all, and the game does get silly at higher levels) but I think it goes too far to claim that it's somehow inappropriate or accidental that the rest of the game exists.

[VoxRationis]

Order of the Stick is a webcomic, not a D&D tabletop game.

It's a webcomic heavily based (especially in the part I was referring to) on a D&D tabletop game, obviously, and in the early part a great deal of its humor stemmed from verbatim reference to rules and the ways in which people play the game (obviously, not the way in which these forumists do, or else they'd all be 25th level, but still).

[squiggit]

(obviously, not the way in which these forumists do, or else they'd all be 25th level, but still).

I think I've only played two games that went beyond tenth level (and one of them started there anyways). I just don't like the idea of treating the game as though my version of it is the only one exists and I really don't understand this sort of "Me(being right) vs everyone else(being wrong)" air being put on.

[Augmental]

It's a webcomic heavily based (especially in the part I was referring to) on a D&D tabletop game, obviously, and in the early part a great deal of its humor stemmed from verbatim reference to rules and the ways in which people play the game (obviously, not the way in which these forumists do, or else they'd all be 25th level, but still).

It's still not proof that the designers designed D&D to be a swords-and-sorcery game.

[(Un)Inspired]

It's a webcomic heavily based (especially in the part I was referring to) on a D&D tabletop game, obviously, and in the early part a great deal of its humor stemmed from verbatim reference to rules and the ways in which people play the game (obviously, not the way in which these forumists do, or else they'd all be 25th level, but still).

I think most games assume a 20 level progression right? Very few posts I've read deal with 25th level characters.

[VoxRationis]

I think I've only played two games that went beyond tenth level (and one of them started there anyways). I just don't like the idea of treating the game as though my version of it is the only one exists and I really don't understand this sort of "Me(being right) vs everyone else(being wrong)" air being put on.

Did you not read the full of the last few of my comments? I readily admitted that the game "clearly accepts" the GitP playstyle.

[DarkSonic1337]

Did you not read the full of the last few of my comments? I readily admitted that the game "clearly accepts" the GitP playstyle.

It not only accepts that playstyle, but it actually suggests that playstyle mechanically (though the designers may not have intended this). By 7th level your wizard is teleporting hundreds of feet in 6 seconds, summoning celestial beings (and I don't just mean dogs with the celestial template. Dude is getting Lantern Archons), making Zombies, cursing people forever, making walls of fire or just walls that block people by their moral and ethical beliefs, spying on people just by knowing their name, killing people with illusions, and insert any number of 4th level spell effects here (this is just the Wiz/Sorc list btw)

That gritty low magic feel breaks down as early as level 7, and things RAPIDLY escalate as higher spell levels open up. Hell by level 9 your Cleric buddy can bring you plane hopping if your party wants to do that.

The game is still high magic even without tippyverse levels of magic availability. A 10th level party (what is supposed to be the middle level in a 20 level game I guess) can explore the planes.

[VoxRationis]

It not only accepts that playstyle, but it actually suggests that playstyle mechanically (though the designers may not have intended this). By 7th level your wizard is teleporting hundreds of feet in 6 seconds, summoning celestial beings (and I don't just mean dogs with the celestial template. Dude is getting Lantern Archons), making Zombies, cursing people forever, making walls of fire or just walls that block people by their moral and ethical beliefs, spying on people just by knowing their name, killing people with illusions, and insert any number of 4th level spell effects here (this is just the Wiz/Sorc list btw)


I'm not quite sure how that affects what I'm saying...
When I'm describing my playing style, I'm not trying to say that I favor the game be historical fiction. None of those things are especially against what I'm trying to say here. Lantern Archons and zombies don't really affect things that much, barring the former's ability to make everything look like an upscale restaurant with continual flame, walls of fire are impressive but not especially game-changing, Bestow Curse has a frustratingly high chance of failure on its own, as does Scrying, and said wizard can in any case do only a few of those things per day at that level, meaning that the mage spends most of the time walking like a normal human being, carefully reserving their power for when it's legitimately useful.
Perhaps, once again, I have failed to make myself clear. I do not hate magic in D&D. I am not advocating a no-magic campaign as a matter of course (though it could be interesting as a shakeup, in the same vein that several other 'twists' could be interesting shakeups). I am simply advocating a game tone and setting that plays a little above Newhon on the scale of magic availability and commonness, as opposed to... I'm not even familiar with many stories that approach high-level D&D play.

[Curmudgeon]

By that logic, you can't forge anything (make a Forgery check) until someone begins to check the documents, since that's also an opposed roll, but that's not how it works.
The Forgery skill (and also Disguise) includes language which has those opposed checks operating differently than the norm.
The Forgery check is made secretly, so that you’re not sure how good your forgery is. As with Disguise, you don’t even need to make a check until someone examines the work. Hide and Spot operate under the normal opposed check rules.

It's not "by that logic" but instead by the rules.

[VoxRationis]

Just because your character isn't rolling a Hide check doesn't mean they're not hiding. Your character is assumed to be capable of myriad actions not explicitly covered by the rules. Saying that a character can't Hide until they're being looked at, when they can't hide due to being looked at without some sort of supporting skill or ability, is up there with the Dragon Disciple Paradox or the "monks aren't proficient with their own fists" nonsense in terms of ridiculous adherence to RAW in the face of simple common sense. It's like saying that since there are no rules for inhaling, IIRC, but there are for dying of oxygen deprivation, your character dies a few minutes after the game starts.

[Stoneback]

Well, when a mommy Shadow and a daddy Shadow with an interest in ballet love eachother very much...

... And then she realized that dancing and being able to stand right in front of people without them seeing her were her two true passions in life. Thus she became known as the Shadowdancer.



Oh, wait. You meant why did WotC design that prestige class. Hm, same reason they made Monks and Druids in the same book I suppose; to make it exceptionally difficult for mundanes to have as nice of things as their friends.


Thread winner. Lock it! It's over.

[Theomniadept]

Why did wizards make the monk?

In the beginning, there were Wizards. And they were good. But the Wizards knew that only they could equal themselves, and the world quickly devolved into a never-ending chain of contingent actions, which slowed the gameplay, and thus, the universe, to a complete stop. Then an understanding was made. Other classes would be created. If players had options then the number of Wizards would decrease to acceptable levels. It was understood that many things were necessary.

First was the Cleric. His power was from another source, his own gods or ideals and his alignment, and it was good. Or Evil. Or Lawful or Chaotic. Powerful, versatile, and always under the effect of his Divine Metamagic Persisted buff spells, he was almost as powerful as the Wizard, but lacked the infinite power of Polymorph.

Then there was the Druid. The Druid called no role his own, for his power encircled all. His spellpower was in equal to his Cleric predecessor. His fleshraker velociraptor would serve faithfully until he failed a save and needed to be replaced with his plentiful and always-nearby velociraptor family members. His own form would stretch across many, assuming the form of the bear at level 8 and casting Bite of the Wereboar to ascend to his ultimate form: ManBearPig.

The Sorcerer was modeled after his creator. He would have a limited selection of the Almighty's magic, and in exchange he would gain the spontaneity that would grant him magic of the Dragons.

The final of the magic-oriented was the Bard. His music and foppish looks would trick the lessers into believing him weak. His lessers would then win many a battle thanks to his Haste spells and would succeed at many a skill check due to the Inspiring Performance, and his illusions would create many a shenanigan open to abuse.

In the center was the Barbarian. His sword was mighty, his strength mightier. He would excel in only a singular area; killing. With a mighty leap and a slew of slashes his leap attack combo would one-shot many a BBEG, sending many a DM to the internet to seek aid. He traded weaknesses to difficult terrain, concealment, cover, and Will saves to the Almighty. And the Almighty accepted the sacrifice, and saw fit to grant the Barbarian his ultimate form: the Frenzied Berserker.

The Rogue was created out of necessity. His creator was subject to the laws of the universe, and had no method of disarming traps beyond his magic trap-triggering and trap-avoiding shenanigans. One rose to meet the trap on the level of the skill check, and that was the rogue. Though he would fall to many of his unthinking enemies, he would meet the game in a battle of wits, carrying his mundane equipment and wands into scenarios to avoid combat altogether.

The Ranger would be the first of his kind, one who mixes full combat ability with magic. Though his own animal companion could never become the Fleshraker velociraptor, it would serve its purpose to deflect incoming attacks and die valiantly. He would exist in two forms, the archer and the dual-wielder. Inferior to the two-handed sword, he would fall by the wayside as his magic carried his material body through the levels.

The Paladin was the first to fall into the depths of the fifth tier. His abilities would be useless past the fifth level, and without prestige classes he would be cursed with the ineptitude of possessing weekly uses of Remove Nonexistent Challenge. As one who possessed magic he would still serve a very minor support role, but was indubitably the weakest of those who possessed magic, and his combat ability lacked any value or synergy with his class. As a mounted character, his might would shine only in the form of the Halfling.

The Fighter was the one who wasn't. For no strength was there in his existing, as he was merely a Warrior with more feats. Feats the Almighty allowed all to take, feats that granted only minor bonuses to his only method of playing; rolling attack rolls. So few were his skills and so lacking were his builds that his entire existence would be only as a dip; a small aspect of other classes and builds. Only by the mercy of the Dungeoncrasher and the Zhentarim Fighter would he ascend out of the tier and into the realm of viability. But there was another.

The final was the creation to earn the most scorn. For the one who fought with no weapon was the one who would die to most creations. The one known as Monk possessed no ability to bypass the infamous reduction of damage, and his abilities granted absolutely no power or utility to any feasible situation. His Flurry of Misses would entrap many a newbie player, who could only see a total of five attacks and a large list of class abilities, with no skill in comparative judging. So great was the scorn of the Almighty, that the Monk would be weaker than the classes deemed suitable only for weaker Non-Player Characters; indeed, for the Adept and the Expert surpassed the Monk in every way.

[VoxRationis]

I think the only thing I can think of that's really worth taking shadowdancer is the ability to have incorporeal Strength-draining creatures guerilla-fight through walls until everything's gone, while you wait in the next room.
Edit: Wait, you can get Hide in Plain Sight at the first level? Sheesh, by the way everyone was talking about it, I thought it was 7th at least. Is 5 ranks in Perform (dance) really that much to ask? Well, Dodge, but still...

[squiggit]

Wait, you can get Hide in Plain Sight at the first level? Sheesh, by the way everyone was talking about it, I thought it was 7th at least. Is 5 ranks in Perform (dance) really that much to ask? Well, Dodge, but still...

I don't mind the skill requirements on their own so much as that I'm annoyed that someone at WoTC decided that they need to be able to literally dance.

[Andezzar]

Wait, you can get Hide in Plain Sight at the first level? Sheesh, by the way everyone was talking about it, I thought it was 7th at least.Unless I missed something HiPS cannot be gotten before ECL 2 because the Template is LA +1, the first Shadowdancer level and thus HiPS cannot be taken before level 8 (10 ranks Hide).

@dancing: The spelldancer must also be able to dance, the Blade Dancer does not. Despite not having it in the name, the Bladesinger must be able to dance.

[(Un)Inspired]

Never give a sword to a man who can't dance
-Confucius

[Psyren]

The final was the creation to earn the most scorn. For the one who fought with no weapon was the one who would die to most creations. The one known as Monk possessed no ability to bypass the infamous reduction of damage, and his abilities granted absolutely no power or utility to any feasible situation. His Flurry of Misses would entrap many a newbie player, who could only see a total of five attacks and a large list of class abilities, with no skill in comparative judging. So great was the scorn of the Almighty, that the Monk would be weaker than the classes deemed suitable only for weaker Non-Player Characters; indeed, for the Adept and the Expert surpassed the Monk in every way.

Bypassing (some) DR is one of the few things monks DO get. Just to give the devil his due here.

[Jeff the Green]

But it isn't. D&D 1e and 2e (and variants) are definitely medieval fantasy games, but 3.0/3.5/4/5 are not. They're very much epic fantasy games, where wizards can unmake reality and barbarians can survive a fall from low orbit with minimal harm. And they've been that way since the editions were fresh.


I don't even know about pre-3.0 D&D. Granted, I've never played it (I've only even played 3.0 in like one or two abortive games in middle school), but the lovecraftian stuff is ancient, there's rules for playing in Netheril (i.e. the highest magic setting ever) in 2e, and there's even transdimensional spacecraft and laser guns in a Gygax adventure or two. Then, of course, there's Planescape (have tea with an imp and then go bowling with a slaad), Spelljammer (ELVES... iN... SPACE!!!!), and Ravenloft (Dracula, wererats in the walls, Frankenstein, and, for whatever reason, Lord Soth. Plus a PrC that makes nonmagical magical items.)